Report on the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Policy Shift in Federal Energy Strategy

The enactment of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” marks a significant change in United States federal energy policy, primarily by accelerating the phase-out of tax credits and subsidies for new wind and solar projects. This legislative action promotes a market-based principle where energy sources compete on merit. This report analyzes the implications of this policy shift through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a particular focus on land use, economic viability, and community impact.

SDG 15 (Life on Land): Land Use and Ecosystem Integrity

The Environmental Footprint of Renewable Energy

A central argument for revising energy subsidies relates to the significant land requirements of renewable technologies, a direct concern for SDG 15, which aims to protect terrestrial ecosystems. The land-use intensity of energy sources is a critical factor:

• Wind Projects: Require approximately 30,000 acres to generate the same electricity as a 2,500-acre coal plant.
• Solar Projects: Require approximately 5,000 acres for an equivalent output.

Federal subsidies for renewable energy can obscure the true cost of this extensive land use, creating a conflict with the sustainable management of finite land resources. By removing these incentives, the new policy mandates that the land-use footprint becomes a direct cost for developers, encouraging more efficient use of land in line with SDG 15 targets.

Case Study: Spotsylvania Solar Energy Center

The Spotsylvania Solar Energy Center in Virginia exemplifies the tension between large-scale renewable projects and local environmental health. The project’s development raised significant concerns relevant to SDG 15 and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation):

1. Deforestation: The project required clearing 3,500 acres of forested land, resulting in the removal of an estimated one million trees, directly contravening SDG 15’s goal to halt deforestation.
2. Community Concerns: Local residents expressed fears regarding the potential for toxic substances from the 1.8 million solar panels to leach into groundwater, threatening local water resources protected under SDG 6.

Economic and Social Sustainability: An Analysis of SDGs 7, 8, and 11

SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): Evaluating Affordability and Reliability

The new policy challenges the premise that subsidized renewables automatically fulfill the objectives of SDG 7. While the goal promotes clean energy, it also emphasizes affordability and reliability.

• Affordability: In Virginia, following the Spotsylvania project’s operational start, average electricity rates are projected to rise by 50% between 2019 and 2025 (from 10 to 15 cents/kWh). This trend suggests that such projects may undermine the goal of ensuring affordable energy for all.
• Reliability: The report cites the case of a 12-hour blackout in Spain, a country with over half its grid supplied by renewables. The incident, attributed to a lack of grid inertia after two solar plants failed, raises questions about the reliability of renewable-heavy infrastructure, a key component of SDG 7.

SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): Community Opposition

The push for large-scale renewable developments has often clashed with the objectives of SDG 11, which seeks to create inclusive and sustainable communities. Widespread local opposition highlights this conflict. According to the Renewable Rejection Database, local governments across the U.S. have rejected or restricted over 800 wind and solar projects since 2015 due to concerns over land use, water resources, and the alteration of rural landscapes.

SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Market Distortions and Resource Allocation

The report argues that extensive government subsidies distort energy markets, leading to inefficient resource allocation and potentially hindering the sustainable economic growth targeted by SDG 8. In 2024, federal subsidies for renewable energy sources exceeded $15 billion, compared to $3 billion for fossil fuels. By removing what is described as a “crutch of federal aid,” the new law aims to foster a competitive market where energy sources succeed based on their intrinsic efficiency and cost-effectiveness, promoting a more sustainable economic model.

Conclusion: A New Framework for Energy Policy and Sustainable Development

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” represents a fundamental re-evaluation of the strategy for achieving a sustainable energy future. By eliminating preferential subsidies, the policy prioritizes market-based competition and accountability for environmental and economic costs. This approach seeks to create a more balanced alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals by ensuring that progress toward SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) does not come at the expense of SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). The legislation advocates for an integrated approach where energy solutions are efficient, reliable, and competitive, thereby fostering a more holistically sustainable development path.

1. SDGs Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 15: Life on Land

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified Based on the Article’s Content

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

1. Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.
   • The article connects to this target by highlighting community concerns about large-scale solar projects. Specifically, it mentions that residents near the Spotsylvania Solar Energy Center “feared toxic substances leaching from panels into groundwater.” This directly relates to the goal of minimizing the release of hazardous materials to protect water quality.

SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

1. Target 7.1: By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services.
   • The article questions whether subsidized renewable energy projects contribute to this target. It cites the case of Virginia, where “average electricity rates rose from 10 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2019 to 15 cents/kWh in June 2025,” suggesting a negative impact on affordability. It also challenges the reliability of renewable-heavy grids by pointing to Spain, which “suffered a 12-hour blackout” due to insufficient backup for its solar infrastructure.
2. Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
   • This target is central to the article’s discussion. The article critiques the primary policy tool used to achieve this target—subsidies. It argues that federal policies like tax credits and land subsidies for wind and solar distort the market and are not the most efficient way to increase the share of renewables. The entire premise of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is to change the approach to achieving this target.
3. Target 7.a: By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology… and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology.
   • The article directly addresses the investment aspect of this target. It argues that government subsidies, such as the “$15 billion in federal subsidies in 2024” for renewables, represent a flawed approach to promoting investment. The author advocates for a market-based system where investment is driven by competition and merit rather than “lavish government support.”

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

1. Target 8.4: Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production.
   • The article argues that subsidies for renewable energy lead to inefficiency and misallocation of resources. It states that using vast amounts of land for wind and solar is an inefficient use of a “finite and valuable resource” and that the overall result of these policies is “not cleaner and more reliable energy, but misallocated resources.” This is a direct critique of the resource efficiency of the subsidized renewable energy sector.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

1. Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management.
   • The article highlights a conflict between large-scale energy projects and local community planning. It notes that “Communities across the country are voicing concerns” and that “more than 800 wind and solar projects have been rejected or restricted by local governments in the United States since 2015.” This points to a lack of participatory and integrated planning where local concerns about land use and landscape alteration are overridden.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

1. Target 12.c: Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption.
   • While this target focuses on fossil-fuel subsidies, the article uses the same logic to critique renewable energy subsidies. It argues that these subsidies distort fair competition and obscure the true cost and efficiency of different energy sources. By providing data that “renewable energy sources received over $15 billion in federal subsidies in 2024, compared to $3 billion for fossil fuels,” the article directly engages with the theme of rationalizing energy subsidies to promote a more efficient market.

SDG 13: Climate Action

1. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • The article is a critique of how climate change measures are being integrated into national policy. It discusses the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” as a shift in federal energy policy away from subsidies for renewables. The author argues that the current pro-subsidy strategy, often justified as a necessary climate action, is flawed and that a new approach rooted in market competition is needed.

SDG 15: Life on Land

1. Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests.
   • The article provides a direct example of how renewable energy projects can conflict with this target. The Spotsylvania Solar Energy Center involved the “clearing of 3,500 acres of forested land, which involved the removal of around a million trees.” This action represents a direct loss of a forest ecosystem, contrary to the goal of conservation.
2. Target 15.9: By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes.
   • The article implies a failure to meet this target by describing how large-scale renewable projects “disrupt local land use… and alter rural landscapes.” The widespread community opposition and rejection of over 800 projects suggest that ecosystem values and local concerns are not being adequately integrated into the development process for these energy facilities.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article

For Target 7.1 (Affordable and Reliable Energy)

1. Indicator of Affordability: The change in electricity price. The article states that in Virginia, “average electricity rates rose from 10 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2019 to 15 cents/kWh in June 2025.” This 50% increase is used as a metric to argue against the cost-effectiveness of the solar project.
2. Indicator of Reliability: The occurrence and duration of power outages. The article cites that Spain “suffered a 12-hour blackout” as evidence of grid instability, implying that grid reliability can be measured by the frequency and length of such events.

For Target 12.c (Rationalize Inefficient Subsidies)

1. Indicator of Financial Support: The monetary value of government subsidies. The article provides specific figures: “renewable energy sources received over $15 billion in federal subsidies in 2024, compared to $3 billion for fossil fuels.” This data is used to measure the scale of government support for different energy types.

For Target 15.1 (Conservation of Terrestrial Ecosystems)

1. Indicator of Land Use Efficiency: The area of land required per unit of energy produced. The article provides a comparative metric: “Wind projects take up approximately 30,000 acres to produce the same amount of electricity as a 2,500-acre coal plant. Solar is also land-intensive, requiring about 5,000 acres for equivalent output.”
2. Indicator of Deforestation: The area of forest cleared for development. The article specifies that the Spotsylvania project required the “clearing of 3,500 acres of forested land.”

For Target 11.3 (Participatory and Sustainable Planning)

1. Indicator of Community Opposition: The number of rejected or restricted development projects. The article cites the “Renewable Rejection Database,” which shows that “more than 800 wind and solar projects have been rejected or restricted by local governments in the United States since 2015.”

For Target 6.3 (Improve Water Quality)

1. Implied Indicator of Water Pollution Risk: The potential for hazardous material leakage. The article mentions residents’ “fears of toxic substances leaching from panels into groundwater.” While not a measured outcome, this identifies a risk factor that would require monitoring of water quality for specific pollutants as an indicator of impact.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: bradfordera.com